Many types of information are referenced and archived in everyday life using a symbolic code. Typically a symbolic code is employed by a community of users who require a consistent and convenient language to refer to a particular set of signified objects—entities in the real world signified by the symbols of the code. However, in fact, most symbolic codes are not formalized and therefore users do not employ these codes in a coordinated and consistent manner. Thus, interpretation of symbols is problematic.
For example, in the financial world, financial exchanges each use a different set of exchange (ticker) symbols to refer to companies and their securities. Although within the United States, local exchanges coordinate symbol names, in general, worldwide exchanges each use a particular symbol set and symbol structure for identifying companies and their securities. For example, both the PSE (Pacific Stock Exchange) and the NYSE (New York Stock Exchange) use the symbol ‘IBM’ to signify a security of IBM. However, in the United States the symbol ‘T’ refers to an AT&T security while in Canada ‘T’ refers to a security of the company Telos. In Britain the symbol ‘T’ may refer to the security of a different company.
Vendors of financial information such as Reuters, Bloomberg, Bridge, etc. also employ unique symbol sets and structures to refer to companies and their securities. Many vendors of financial information use a structured symbol code segmented into two portions separated by a delimiter character. For example, a vendor may use the symbol structure ROOT[delimiter character]SOURCE where the ROOT segment refers to a particular company's security and the SOURCE segment refers to a country or exchange where that security is traded. The delimiter character is typically a character such as ‘@’ or ‘.’.
Because of the multiplicity of symbol sets in circulation, interpreting a symbol in order to identify a security and a company it belongs to is problematic. For example, a single vendor may use the symbol ‘IBM.FR’ to refer to an IBM security traded in France and ‘IBM.GB’ to refer to the same IBM security traded in Great Britain. In either case, both symbols IBM.GB and IBM.FR are associated with the same company IBM. However, two vendors may use the same root and source segments to refer to two different securities issued by two different companies. For example, a first vendor might use the symbol ‘T.US’ to refer to an AT&T security traded in the United States while a second vendor might employ the symbol ‘T@US’ to refer to a security of a different company. On the other hand, two different vendors may use different root and source symbols to refer to the same security of a company. For example, a first vendor might use the symbol ‘IBM.UK’ to refer to an IBM security traded in Great Britain while a second vendor may use the symbol ‘IB.EG’ to refer to the same IBM security.
The need for a consistent system to reference financial information linked to particular companies has grown even more important as online financial research has increased. Document repositories storing financial documents are accessible to investors and researchers via public networks such as the Internet or private networks. Contributors may submit research documents related to particular companies or securities to a document repository for archival and clients (i.e., investors or researchers) of the document repository may retrieve documents related to particular companies or securities of interest.
In the archival process, contributors typically submit a document along with an input string that refers to the company or security that is the subject of the submitted document. However, because of the multiplicity of symbol sets in use, accurate archival and retrieval of documents is highly problematic. Contributors will typically submit an input string using any of the various vendor symbols and exchange symbols in circulation or possibly may use an idiosyncratic symbol unique to that contributor. Thus, identifying a company security referred to by a contributor is difficult. Similarly, clients desiring to retrieve documents regarding a particular company will submit input symbols in a variety of formats including vendor symbols, exchange symbols or an isolated root symbol, which complicates the retrieval process.
The difficulties regarding the interpretation of security symbols illustrate a general need for a consistent and unambiguous system for referencing symbolically linked information so that the information may be accurately archived and retrieved.